The Importance of Protecting the Privacy of Non-Profit Donors

The IRS recently defended the privacy rights of non-profit organizations by declaring they would no longer collect the names and addresses of donors. Detractors of this new policy, mainly coming from the far-left, argue this will lead to an increase in foreign spending and so called ‘dark money’ in American politics. The Institute for Free Speech's Luke Wachob explains in The Hill why this complaint is not based in reality. 

First, nonprofits can accept money from foreign sources, but they are legally prohibited from using it to support the election or defeat of candidates. The ban also applies to broadcast ads that mention the name of a candidate in the time near an election.

Second, a donor name and address does not tell you whether it is a U.S. citizen or green card holder. Many Americans live abroad, and many people in the United States are not citizens or legal permanent residents.

One of the most important results of the new IRS policy is groups will no longer be targeted for their political beliefs or agenda, something conservatives say was commonplace during the Obama administration. 

The rule. . . should prevent the IRS and partisan state attorneys general from targeting conservative groups, Republicans say, such as the government scrutiny of tea party groups during the Obama era. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the move was a victory for free speech and a “straightforward, common-sense policy decision.”

“It’s particularly welcome news to those of us who are intently focused on defending the First Amendment, for those of us who raised concerns during the last administration about activist regulators punishing free speech and free association,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The IRS will no longer pointlessly demand private contributor lists from whole categories of tax-exempt organizations.”

Unsurprisingly, since the decision was announced liberal outlets have painted the picture that this move favors conservative organizations in a disproportionate manner. CNN recently ran a piece insinuating this policy change only benefits the NRA and other conservative groups. This is flat out not true, and Charles Cooke at The National Review explains how the change benefits the majority of non-profits on both sides of the political spectrum.

The change applies to every single 501(c)(4) in America. CNN could just as easily — and just as misleadingly — have placed the story under the headline, “NAACP will no longer need to identify their donors to the IRS.” Or it could have mentioned, say, Planned Parenthood. Or SEIU. Or Everytown for Gun Safety. Or the Sierra Club. Or . . .

Regardless of how the media is portraying this important policy change, non-profit organizations finally have their privacy rights protected. American elections were always meant to defend against intimidation and discrimination against a set of political beliefs. Thankfully, the IRS moved our nation a step closer to that goal.

A Needed Policy Change to Eliminate Bias at the IRS

In the past, conservative groups had to disclose sensitive information to the bureaucratic and often biased organization that is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Fox News reports that thanks to a recent policy change, that is no longer the case.

The Trump administration is lifting requirements that some tax-exempt groups disclose the identities of their donors to federal tax authorities. The change benefits groups that spend millions of dollars on political ads, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an organization tied to the billionaire Koch brothers.

This major announcement will bring a needed change of privacy to an organization that has historically discriminated against conservatives and right-leaning organizations.

Under the new guidance, social-welfare groups and other tax-exempt organizations, besides charitable and political organizations, will no longer have to provide the IRS with the names and addresses of donors. The groups will still have to keep donor information in their own records and make it available for the IRS when the agency needs the information in audits of taxpayers.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the change on the Senate floor yesterday:

Last night, the Internal Revenue Service made an important announcement. It’s particularly welcome news to those of us who are intently focused on defending the First Amendment, for those of us who raised concerns during the last administration about activist regulators punishing free speech and free association. And it’s a straightforward, commonsense policy decision. . . . 

It raises the question: If the IRS isn’t permitted to do anything with this set of Americans’ private information, why collect it in the first place? Unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when the government stockpiles private data about the donations through which Americans participate in the public discourse. We know exactly why many on the left are keen for bureaucrats to have this confidential information. Where it leads, is Americans being bullied – bullied -- for exercising their First Amendment rights. . . . 

So I welcome this announcement, and applaud the leadership of Secretary Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. I’m glad that this step will make the right of Americans to freely advocate for their strongly-held beliefs less vulnerable to the malice of some in government, and to the proven failures of bureaucracies. And I urge continued vigilance for all of us who cherish our First Amendment.

Conservative groups have long been calling for a policy proposal like this one to take place, even coming together to write a letter to President Trump. The New York Times reports,

Americans for Prosperity and other 501(c)(4) organizations in the Koch brothers’ network of advocacy groups were among dozens of such nonprofit groups to sign onto a letter sent in May to Mr. Trump and Mr. Mnuchin declaring a policy change “an issue of utmost importance.” The letter accused the I.R.S. of “targeting of nonprofit organizations on the basis of ideology.”

Officials with the Treasury Department largely echoed that reasoning, explaining that the move was driven in part by the I.R.S.’s inappropriate targeting of political groups during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The RNLA welcomes this new policy change as private organizations should never face government discrimination for their political beliefs. This proposal serves as one more safeguard against potential abuse.

Trump DOJ Righting Wrongs of Viewpoint Discrimination by Obama's IRS

The Trump Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions continues to restore the rule of law and undo years of politicization of DOJ, and the entire Executive Branch, that occurred under President Obama.  For example, consider last week's settlement with Z Street, one of the many organizations in which the IRS engaged in viewpoint discrimination when evaluating its application for recognition of tax exempt status.  Z Street's challenge to the IRS' discrimination was the first "IRS scandal" case filed, back in August 2010.  

The head of the DOJ's Tax Division and RNLA member Richard Zuckerman stated:

“Tax exemption eligibility should be based on whether an organization’s activities fulfill requirements of the law, not a group’s policy positions or the name chosen to reflect those views,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman. “The attorneys at the Department of Justice work hard to ensure that all Americans receive equal treatment under the law.  Today’s settlement further illustrates this commitment.”

This is a remarkably refreshing view from DOJ, respecting the rule of law instead of liberal policy objectives.  The Founder of Z Street, which seeks to educate Americans about issues relating to Israel and the Middle East, wrote a disturbing account in the Wall Street Journal regarding her organization's discriminatory treatment by the Obama IRS:

[T]he application [filed in December 2009] languished. In late July 2010, an IRS agent truthfully responded to our lawyer’s query about why processing was taking so long: Z Street’s application was getting special scrutiny, the agent said, because it was related to Israel. Some applications for tax-exempt status were being sent to a special office in Washington for review of whether the applicants’ policy positions conflicted with those of the Obama administration. . . .

Now we know the truth, and it’s exactly as bad as we thought. IRS documents—those they didn’t “lose” or otherwise fail to produce—reveal the following:
• Our application was flagged because Z Street’s mission related to Israel, a country with terrorism. Therefore, an IRS manager in our case said in sworn testimony, the IRS needed to investigate whether Z Street was funding terror.
• Some applications for tax-exempt status were indeed being sent to IRS headquarters in Washington for more intense scrutiny. They were selected because of the applicants’ viewpoint.
• In August 2010, three other Jewish organizations applying for tax-exempt status were asked by the IRS to “explain their religious beliefs about the Land of Israel.” 

Our own investigation disclosed that between 2009 and 2016, while Z Street’s application was stalled, the IRS needed no special scrutiny to grant numerous applications for tax-exempt status that explicitly proclaimed donations would be spent in Gaza—a territory formally under the jurisdiction of Hamas, which the U.S. State Department designates as a terror organization. 

While claiming to be investigating Z Street’s funding of terror, the IRS never asked how or where Z Street spent its money. The IRS ultimately granted Z Street’s application, in October 2016, without asking anything about terror, or money, or anything else it hadn’t known in 2010.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus went on to explain how the Obama Administration's unofficial policy positions on Israel influenced her organization's treatment by the IRS, even though it only sought to educate Americans and spend its funds in America, and the immense damage wrought to her fledging organization by the IRS' seven years of delay.  The proposed consent order contains more details about the IRS' treatment of Z Street.

While Z Street and the other organizations against which the IRS discriminated because their viewpoints differed from the Obama Administration's can never have the lost years of fundraising, activity, and advocacy back, we are grateful that the Trump-Sessions DOJ is taking steps to recognize the wrongs committed by the IRS, end the interminable litigation, and let these non-profits move on to focus on their missions.

Remember When the IRS Targeted Conservative Organizations?

RNLA member Brad Smith wrote last week in the Washington Examiner to remind us about how the IRS under President Obama targeted conservative organizations, delaying their applications for tax-exempt status and asking harassing and illegal questions as part of the IRS' heightened review process for organizations with names containing such dangerous words as "Patriot":

Finally, last October, the IRS signed a consent decree in federal court in which it admitted to targeting conservative organizations for more than two years, from 2010 through 2013. . . . This IRS targeting of conservative organizations in the run-up to the 2012 election should be one of the major scandals of our time. Researchers from Stockholm University, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and the American Enterprise Institute concluded that a fully mobilized Tea Party, unhindered by IRS harassment, would have brought the Republican Party between 5 and 8.5 million votes. You may recall Obama won the popular vote by just under 5 million votes. 

Yet this issue has quietly gone away without any consequences for the wrongdoers, and the press has already started changing the history books:

Instead, what we are now seeing is an outright attempt to rewrite history so as to whitewash the entire affair. Newsweek has gone so far as to call the scandal “fake news,” with one of its columnists calling it “a lie.” A Dec. 29 editorial by the Washington Post claims that there was “mismanagement … but not deliberate targeting.”

When the left and the media do acknowledge the targeting and harassment, they are quick to point out that liberal organizations were also targeted.  But as Prof. Smith notes, the IRS admitted that 75% of the organizations targeted were conservative-leaning, while less than 5% were progressive-leaning.  Prof. Smith concludes by reminding readers of the source of the targeting scandal:

As we have documented elsewhere, in targeting conservative organizations in the run-up to the 2012 election, the IRS appeared to be acting at the suggestion, though not the direct request, of President Obama and leading Democratic lawmakers. This was not a case of mere “mismanagement,” but a bureaucracy responding to the political demands of the party then in power.

Congress should make sure that this never happens again, and act to get the IRS out of the business of regulating politics. 

The IRS targeting scandal reminds us to be wary of government bureaucracies with the power to regulate political speech, which is why legislation such as the misnamed "Honest Ads Act" and many informal proposals to respond to Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election are so dangerous.  

AG Sessions Testifies Before House Judiciary; Highlights Promotion of Rule of Law at DOJ

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the House Judiciary Committee.  In his opening statement, he shared how the Department of Justice has advanced the rule of law since he took office:

After careful review, we have established a reinvigorated Project Safe Neighborhood program, as the foundational policy for public safety. . . . We have seen a 23 percent increase in gun prosecutions in the second quarter of this fiscal year. . . . We are making it clear that we stand with our law enforcement partners 100 percent. . . . We have also protected the rule of law in our own Department. We have prohibited so-called third party settlements that were being used to bankroll outside interest groups.

We have settled civil cases regarding the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate and settled the cases of many groups whose tax-exempt status was significantly and wrongly delayed by the Internal Revenue Service. We have also provided legal counsel to this administration in favor of ending several other unlawful policies. . . . We have filed briefs defending properly enacted state voter identification laws, lawful redistricting plans, religious liberty, and free speech on college campuses. In short, it is our mission to restore the American people’s confidence in the Department of Justice by defending the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed them. And it is a mission we are honored to undertake. 

Attorney General Sessions was testifying in part on his previous testimony concerning contacts of the Trump campaign with agents of the Russian government.  He noted that, while it would be difficult for anyone to recall a conversation had in passing with someone a year ago, he has always answered questions truthfully to the best of his recollection:

In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer all of your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie.

Let me be clear: I have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General. As I said before, my story has never changed. I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question to the best of my recollection as I will continue to do today.

Attorney General Sessions has been a lightning rod for controversy and accusations particularly because he has conducted himself so ethically and led the Department of Justice so effectively.  His leadership in turning the DOJ back to the rule of law is especially remarkable considering the number of Obama-appointee holdovers and acting department heads that remain at the DOJ due to Senate Democrats' delays and the liberal leanings of most of the career staff.  We thank Attorney General Sessions for his service and his willingness to go before Congress yet again to testify and help Congress fulfill its role of oversight of DOJ.

Religious Liberty Experts Discussed Current Issues During National Policy Conference

During RNLA's National Policy Conference in May, Prof. Robert Destro from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America and Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom opined on President Trump's executive order on religious liberty, recent litigation, and other current legal issues regarding religious liberty and rights of conscience.  Here are highlights from the discussion.

On President Trump's executive order: 

Ms. Fiedorek: Definitely a step in the right direction that we would have such a commitment from a brand new administration to protecting the religious liberty of all Americans. . . . There is more to be done as we move forward. . . . We still need to see the agencies take action [to protect rights of conscience]. 

Prof. Destro: What you have is a theme that has now been set by the President.  What we need the President to do is to get those agencies staffed up with people who really understand what religious liberty is all about . . . . All you have to do is see how often the Democrats campaign in churches from the pulpit, and then you see on the other side of the spectrum all these churches that are scared to death of the IRS. And what we have found in the abuse of the IRS scandal is that they actually did have something to be afraid of.

On rights of conscience in the post-Obergefell v. Hodges era:

Ms. Fiedorek: We have such a rich history in the United States of balancing very important government interest with a vast variety of viewpoints and protecting individual freedom . . . . In the past few years, we’re seeing a growing intolerance, particularly advanced by the government, for those who want to live and work consistent with their convictions about marriage. . . . We’re seeing the government use the force of law to come after them and attempt to compel them to speak a message or participate in an event that violates their sincerely held beliefs. . . . 

The [Washington State] Attorney General conceded during oral argument that when [Baronelle Stutzman] creates floral arrangements, she does actually engage in speech, that that is actually expression.  He went on to say that the government can dictate and control what type of expression she creates and for what type of events she does so.  I think that should frighten all of us when the government has that much power that it can come in and say this viewpoint is allowed but this viewpoint isn’t. 

Prof. Destro: What we need to do is recapture in our understanding of religious freedom itself is that the Constitution has religious freedom written into its DNA.  Everybody talks about the First Amendment, but the no religious test clause of Article VI was there before the First Amendment was.  And there [are] also the negative implications – the qualifications clause[s] deliberately left religion out of the qualifications. . . . One of the most bloody battles during the Constitutional Convention was over the swear or affirm clause, because Quakers couldn’t swear, and neither could Native Americans. . . . 

This is compulsion again. [Plaintiff] is entirely entitled to use her own money to buy her birth control pills, but she has no right to stick her hand in the wallet of the Little Sisters of the Poor to get her money.  Religious liberty is not an entity to itself.  What was happening, what was suggested in Hobby Lobby and other cases was a public taking for private use. . . . We need to develop a more holistic way of looking at, we are all Americans and the Constitution welcomes us here, and if the New York dressmaker doesn’t have to make a dress for Ivanka Trump, then neither does the florist have to make the bouquet for the gay wedding.

Ms. Fiedorek: Religious freedom is for both the religious and non-religious alike.  It protects all of us.  Civil liberties absolutely travel together, and when one starts to get chipped away at, you’ll soon see other freedoms chipped away at.

On Trinity Lutheran v. Comer:

Ms. Fiedorek predicted a 7-2 decision, based on oral argument (and she was correct when the opinion was released in June): Justice Breyer was very concerned that if the lower court’s ruling stands, what does this mean for other neutral programs and benefits, including safety. . . . [Kagan] said this is a clear burden on a constitutional right, because religious individuals and groups are barred from competing in an otherwise neutral benefit. 

Prof. Destro: We have to come back to this question of neutrality in public programs. . . . The Court has come a long way since 1947 recognizing that there ought to be equal access to public benefits.

Ms. Fiedorek concluded by noting that “[protection of rights of conscience is] necessary now to preserve that marketplace where we can all participate in and engage without fear that the government’s going to punish us for holding a certain belief,” and Prof. Destro agreed that religious liberty has become equated with bigotry, when in reality it is a fundamental right that should be defended.

Jeff Sessions’ Conduct Has Been Beyond Reproach

This week in the Daily Caller, RNLA Vice President for Election Education David Warrington submitted an op-ed reviewing this week's Senate hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The article praises his testimony and offers a comparison to the former Obama Administration:

[Attorney General] Sessions stood his ground and answered every question asked regardless of how ridiculous the question . . . The only questions he refused to answer were ones pertaining to private conversations he had with the President.  In refusing to detail those conversations, he acted properly. . . Sessions’ refusal to answer on the basis that President Trump may wish to assert executive privilege over the conversation in question, conforms with longstanding practice at the Department of Justice, as well as every other department or agency of the executive branch.  Democrats were aghast at this, and Senator Martin Heinrich (NM) even accused him of obstructing a congressional investigation.  Yet legal privileges, like the attorney-client privilege, marital privilege, and executive privilege, are important protections for the rule of law, not an obstruction of the process. . .

Furthermore, as it is the President who holds the privilege, neither Sessions nor any other executive branch official, has the authority to waive that privilege.  Every President, including Obama, understood this . . . Democrats on the Committee, and their allies, must have forgotten that for eight years during the Obama administration, they championed the independence of the executive branch, executive privilege, the confidentiality of executive branch communications, and the power of the executive branch to resist congressional investigations. . . The Obama administration broadly resisted congressional investigations into serious crimes and misdeeds for which there was actual evidence (unlike the assertion of Trump’s collusion with Russia).

Mr. Warrington went on to point out that President Obama’s DOJ did not turn over emails in the IRS investigation on targeting Tea Party organizations, invoked executive privilege on Operation Fast and Furious, and shielded Executive staff from participating in congressional investigations or blatantly ignored the calls of Congress. The article closed on this note:

Attorney General Sessions’ conduct has been above reproach, and the inquiries about him should be laid to rest, but Democrat Senators and the media continue “resisting” President Trump through false attacks on Sessions and others close to Trump.  This not only damages the public discourse and undermines our system of representative government but, as Sessions pointed out during the hearing, it distracts the DOJ from legitimate problems facing the nation, such as the opioid epidemic and terrorism.  Perhaps that is the Democrats’ true goal: if successful in damaging Sessions, they can prevent DOJ from carrying out its mission and thereby harm President Trump and Republicans in 2018 and 2020. . . The Democrats will continue to trade in detestable lies and secret innuendo in their attempt to effectuate the coup they seek in order to achieve the result they did not get at the ballot box. . . What today’s hearing demonstrated beyond any doubt is that Attorney General Sessions is an ethical man who has served his country honorably for many years.

This article was published as part of the Republican National Lawyers Association's regular weekly Op-Ed with the Daily Caller. To read Mr. Warrington's other article about Attorney General Sessions, please click here. We will bring you a summary of our next article next week. 

Congress Shall Make No Law: Protecting the First Amendment from Attack

The Heritage Foundation held an event on today to address the “All-Out Assault on the First Amendment.”  Hosted by Hans von Spakovsky, the panel was comprised of distinguished public policy and research professionals like Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; RNLA Advisory Council Member Robert Alt, President, Buckeye Institute; John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law, and Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; and RNLA Advisory Council Member Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP.

The discussion started with a profound statement from Ms. Mitchell, that the 5 most beautiful words in the English language are: “Congress shall make no law… “

Ms. Mitchell further stated that the left is turning that phrase on its head, and the First Amendment is being used to protect the government from the people and not vice versa. This is the exact opposite of the Founders' purpose for including that clause. She uses the composition of the Federal Election Commission to discuss a troubling example. The Commission is supposed to be a bipartisan group of individuals, yet prior to Hans von Spakovsky, Brad Smith, and Don McGahn becoming Commissioners, there regularly was one Republican who seemed to be conservative in name only and continuously voted with the Democrats. This issue compromised the integrity of the Commission. Additionally, she added comments about the recent scandal with the IRS targeting of conservatives, noting Commissioner Koskinen’s long history of solely supporting liberal candidates and the implicit bias that comes along with that support; the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin; and the enforcement of political speech codes in Montana.

Robert Alt spoke from personal experience as his conservative organization was targeted and audited by the IRS. Mr. Alt thinks preventing the attack on the First Amendment can only be done through fighting back against speech suppressive activity. He brought up the examples of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) receiving a subpoena related to its climate change research and how the state of California was requiring charities to turn over their Schedule B donor disclosures to the state with very little assurance that that information would be kept confidential. CEI fought back in the legal courts and the courts of public opinion against the subpoena that sought information including the donors to the organization. In this instance, free speech won.

The rest of the discussants added commentary on free speech on college campuses and the free exercise of religion and how those are both under attack as well.

All panelists stressed how pivotal this election is and further noted that citizens considering a candidate that supports individuals and policies which strip constitutional rights away, means we all lose in the end.  

Investigation on the IRS Scandal is a “Wakeup Call”

The Senate Finance Committee released its report on the long-time investigation into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups. The report found that Lois Lerner, who oversaw the department that processes applications for tax-exempt status, waited almost two years before notifying her supervisors about delays in processing applications. Some groups waited five years to have their applications processed.

The Senate Finance Committee Report read:

Our investigation found that from 2010 to 2013, IRS management was delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Finance Committee stated:

This bipartisan investigation shows gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the IRS and confirms an unacceptable truth: that the IRS is prone to abuse…The Committee found evidence that the (Obama) administration's political agenda guided the IRS's actions with respect to their treatment of conservative groups… Personal politics of IRS employees, such as Lois Lerner, also impacted how the IRS conducted its business.

Amid the investigation, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) together with Senator John Thune introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 to remedy the situation. Grassley, former Chairman of the Finance Committee responded to the report:

The findings are a wake-up call.” And he proposed  “extending a remedy to social welfare organizations to force answers in instances where the IRS fails to act on an application in a timely manner or makes a negative determination on their tax-exempt status."

Both sides agree that the IRS is unprepared to handle the request of non-profits seeking to raise funds for the 2016 election cycle.

“Mr. Koskinen should no longer be the IRS commissioner”

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs, sent a letter to Obama requesting the firing of IRS chief John Koskinen. Chaffetz stated that Koskinen repeatedly “obstructed” congressional efforts to investigate the IRS’s political targeting taxpayers. Chaffetz quoted his letter in a Capitol Hill press conference,

At best, Commissioner Koskinen was derelict in his duties to preserve agency records. At worst, he and the IRS engaged in an orchestrated plan to hide information from Congress.

Back in 2013, Obama promised to “work hand-in-hand with Congress to fix the problem” when the public learned about the IRS targeting. In the 2013 House investigation, Lois Lerner, ex-IRS official, revealed that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups and other conservatives from April 2010 to April 2012 for higher scrutiny and auditing. However, in March 2014 Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment rights, repeatedly refused to testify at trials, and was subsequently held in contempt.

When Lerner resigned as director of the Exempt Organizations unit In September 2013, Koshen was installed and confirmed. Unfortunately, Koshkinen has failed to restore any faith in the agency.

Chaffetz also emphasized that Koskinen failed to testify truthfully, comply with subpoenas and preserve up to 24,000 emails related to the investigation. If Obama does not remove Koskinen, Chaffetz vows to

pursue all constitutional remedies at our disposal, including potential contempt proceedings or perhaps impeachment.

Ultimately, Chaffetz calls the concealed facts surrounding the IRS targeting “an unacceptable outcome and one that demands those responsible be held accountable.” See the House Oversight Committee’s video “There Must Be Accountability” here.

IRS Targets Conservatives with No Consequence

New documents confirmed that the IRS targeted individual donors giving to those causes who aligned with lists of conservative tax-exempt organizations. Not only did the IRS use the donor lists of tax-exempt organizations for audits, but also the documents highlight that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may have come under “high scrutiny.” The IRS would not produce the documents until required by a Freedom of Information lawsuit, Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220).